The whining disparity: Male struggle is invisible to most women

Successful men have an incentive to hide how hard getting to the top and staying there is, because women don’t like weak men who whine and complain about not getting laid… or almost anything else. Guys who have some success must present it like it’s easy and organic to women, despite the fact that almost all guys experience a lot of rejection and difficulty when it comes to dating… but this can’t be stated, because the unsuccessful men die off, figuratively, in her world and her attention. Women internalize the idea that men have it easy, because that’s what a lot of successful men are marketing… because they (we) think women demand it. When a market demands fantasy, sellers offer fantasy.

What comes after we recognize a dead, boomer ideology?

It’s so weird to see the New York Times do a narrative violation, but it does: check this out,

Predictably, most young Republicans agree with the statement, “Feminism has done more harm than good.” What was astonishing was how many young Democrats agreed as well. While only 4 percent of Democratic men over 50 thought feminism was harmful, 46 percent of Democratic men under 50 did. Nearly a quarter of Democratic women under 50 agreed, compared with only 10 percent of those 50 and older.

I’d have guessed the opposite, that older men would support feminism less, and younger men would support it more… when you find data that contradicts your beliefs, it is worth thinking closely about it. If this kind of polling shows up in a venue committed to “feminism” as an ideology and lifestyle, the citing of the data shows social problems, and cracks in a certain kind of narrative. “Feminism” as defined in the 1950s-1970s, basically won, and this is true whether you or I like it or not (although feminism is now being attacked as somehow excluding transsexuals… a topic for another time). Now what? What comes after victory? Feminism is having a problem because it was against a lot of things, but what was it for? What was its vision of the good life, the good society, etc.?

Protected: Brad P’s dating education memoir “Diary of a Pickup Artist (PUA)”

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Date structure and arc: how to plan and execute dates

When I’m planning and executing initial dates with a girl, I have a repeatable structure or arc that usually goes like this: date one, we meet at a bar, have a drink or two. If the girl seems particularly “on,” I might suggest drink two or three at my place. More often, I’ll suggest we go to a second bar, get a drink, make out a bit on the way there or at the bar, then suggest we go back to mine. A fair number of girls say yes. Some guys report that trying to pull on the first date increases their flake and fall-off rates greatly, but that hasn’t been my overall experience (or Red Pill Dad’s, he’s told me in private). Xbtusd says he never tries for first-date sex. My theory is that girls respect the ask, even if they say no, but that theory may be wrong. 

“Never settle” is an expression of narcissism

The best thing written about modern dating is by The Last Psychiatrist, and it’s so good he felt compelled to delete it, Don’t Settle For The Man You Want. It’s about narcissistic monster Lori Gottlieb, a woman who can’t see herself for who and what she is but is compelled to ladle advice out to everyone else. She thinks TV shows like Will & Grace and movies like Titanic are somehow real… “Nothing characterizes the dumbest generation of narcissists in the history of the world better than using throw away cinema as a template for life.” Lori can’t find a man for many reasons, one being that “She wants someone who will see her the way she wants to be seen and fulfill various other roles she has planned for him, leaving herself free to ‘grow.'” People are people, not roles, and not props in another person’s drama, however much social media tries to convince us otherwise (the best women I’ve met and dated in the last decade use social media minimally, if at all: not a coincidence). Lori is an expert in the negative, not in the positive,

A reasonable question might be, what kind of a man is this woman looking for? I defy you to answer this question. She’s two books and at least three essays into the topic, and still I have no idea. What I do know, however, is what she’s not looking for. That’s where her laser focus is pointed.

She is all “want” and no “give.” Real relationships mean give and take. Too much of either makes them impossible or dysfunctional. But, lots of people (especially women) have been trained to think like Lori: the man is an accessory to their life, not a person with whom she’ll build a new thing. Religion used to try to fight against narcissism, but it’s dead, and now it’s all about you. Advertising tells us so. And we have good psychological defense mechanisms that prevent us from realizing that we only want to take and never want to give. “Gottlieb figures that because she’s attractive and intelligent, the problem must be her standards are too high or men are threatened by her. Wrong. The problem is she is daring someone to like her.” Well that is one problem, and not the only one. But the key word “standards.” Listen to single women and you’ll hear endless talk of “standards.” Listen to married women and they’ll talk about how much they love their kids. Coincidence?

Listen to women’s dating podcasts (I don’t recommend it, but xbtusd listens to them, masochistically) and the idea of “standards” recurs over and over again. It’s right up there with “Living your truth” and letting emotions rule, and ruin, your life.